88

Activists from around the country told The Intercept that they will advocate for an anti-war agenda at the convention in August and withhold their vote in November unless an adequate candidate steps up, listing policy priorities such as support for a permanent ceasefire and standing up to the pro-Israel lobby as it intervenes in Democratic primaries. Even as the Biden campaign insists that he will not step aside, many Democrats appear to be lining up behind Vice President Kamala Harris as an alternative candidate, with some Democratic governors being floated as well.

“My number one criteria for any candidate is opposing the genocide in Gaza,” said Saad Farooq, an uncommitted voter in Massachusetts. Farooq said it was unlikely that the Democratic National Committee would select any candidate who took a stance against Israel’s ongoing war, and that he would support Green Party candidate Jill Stein if she were to appear on the ballot in Massachusetts.

Will Dawson, an uncommitted voter in Washington, D.C., named several factors that could get him to switch his vote from the Green Party’s Stein to another politician. First on his list is a promise to call for an immediate ceasefire and fighting the influence of the pro-Israel lobby and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in Congress.

“This candidate would also ideally work toward pulling further away from the Israeli colonial project over time, with the goal being repealing our absurd financial support, ending the foreign interest agency of AIPAC, and pushing for a nation-wide boycott a la [South Africa] during their apartheid,” Dawson wrote.

The candidate would also have to push to reform the Supreme Court, he added. “The candidate would have to promise to both push for justice impeachment, and expand the courts,” Dawson said.“If a replacement candidate met both of these requirements, I would absolutely consider switching my vote from Jill Stein. Hell, I might even knock doors/canvass for them!”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 16 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

What the fuck is wrong with people. Number one criteria for president is dealing with a small scale civil/proxy war.

Meanwhile in Sudan, Ukraine, China, Myanmar, etc. there are millions more people being killed/impacted by genocidal governments and these don't even make the list of anyone giving a shit when it comes to presidential choice.

Meanwhile the entire world economy is falling apart for the average person.

Meanwhile there's a drug epidemic (somewhat related to the last one) killing around 100,000 Americans a year.

If your number one criteria is the Palestinian war you are either Palestinian(totally okay) or you have no idea how to prioritize your life in a rational manner and should not be allowed to vote.

[-] Impound4017@sh.itjust.works 14 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

I think it should be pretty clear, right? It’s different because America is helping them commit genocide. It’s not like this is all happening separately from us and people are calling for some kind of foreign intervention, they’re asking that we stop helping the people doing a genocide.

That’s not to say it’s my only priority this election, but it’s definitely up there, because I, like many Americans, feel like I’m complicit to some degree.

Make no mistake, though, Trump would be far worse. I still know the score here, but I can understand why it ranks highly on people’s priorities.

[-] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 2 points 4 months ago

I don't mind it being a priority, only it being the top criteria. Someone who says it's their most important priority displays a significant lack of awareness for what's happening in the country and in the world.

[-] Impound4017@sh.itjust.works 8 points 4 months ago

I take your point and agree, actually. Single issue voters are always a nuisance though, and these ones are nothing new.

Also worth noting that we similarly have blood on our hands for a lack of support for Ukraine. All that time that the US political system was bogged down and unable to send aid meant they had to pay the cost to hold the line in manpower instead, so I can understand the frustration.

[-] GladiusB@lemmy.world -5 points 4 months ago

But there is a huge difference between intervention and stopping support for an ally that is RIGHT NEXT TO RUSSIA. Like do they even think that it's not a strategic decision? Is it the best take? No. Is it the best place to be in? No. But pissing off an ally we have had for 50 years is also a bad decision. Maybe weigh the options here.

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 9 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Except Israel has been talking about starting another invasion against Hezbollah...

Who have a defensive treaty with Russia, Iran, and a couple others.

An ally that starts wars isn't a good ally.

They're not providing a strategic advantage, they're dragging us into large scale multi-country war.

It would likely get tied up with Ukraine as well, and get us to a legit WW3.

Because Biden won't cut weapons to Israel and has spent 50 years saying there's no line that Israel could cross

Edit:

RIGHT NEXT TO RUSSIA.

I googled it...

Israel is 3,700 some miles away from Russia. That's wider than America

[-] BeBa@lemmy.world -2 points 4 months ago

Unnm hezbollah is launching rockets at Israel

If one of those rockets hits the chemical plant in Haifa the whole city could go up. Pretty sure that’s valid provocation

But folks like to pretend Israel has no valid reason to protect itself, despite being under constant attack for the past 80 years

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago

What are they protecting by committing genocide in Gaza?

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

But there is a huge difference between intervention and stopping support for an ally that is RIGHT NEXT TO RUSSIA.

I really should start keeping a list of the reprehensible justifications for continued support for Netanyahu's genocide.

[-] GladiusB@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago

Yes. Because I am justifying killing people by saying it's more complicated than people like you are making it. Dumb take.

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

You're making excuses for genocide.

And nothing else.

Hell, you're even downplaying it by referring to it as just "killing people." Though I'm glad you refer to Palestinians as people.

[-] GladiusB@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago

No I'm not. I'm saying it's complicated. Your inability to comprehend that means you are not smart enough to debate with me.

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

I comprehend your excuses just fine. I'm not buying them.

Concession accepted.

[-] HomerianSymphony@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

If your number one criteria is the Palestinian war you are either Palestinian(totally okay) or you have no idea how to prioritize your life in a rational manner and should not be allowed to vote

No longer will I need to wonder how the Germans let the Holocaust happen.

[-] BeBa@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago

Last I checked the Jews weren’t trying to slaughter Germans when the holocaust happened. The Jews never told the germans “you have no right to exist” or “we want to rape and murder you because you’re German”

Meanwhile Islamic extremism groups have spent decades telling Israelis exactly that

[-] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca -2 points 4 months ago
[-] geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml 1 points 4 months ago

https://www.hmd.org.uk/resource/first-they-came-by-pastor-martin-niemoller/

First they came for the Communists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Communist Then they came for the Socialists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Socialist Then they came for the trade unionists And I did not speak out Because I was not a trade unionist Then they came for the Jews And I did not speak out Because I was not a Jew Then they came for me And there was no one left To speak out for me

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Do you think Palestine is in Europe?

And why are you calling a genocide a war? Because the victims have been resisting?

[-] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 0 points 4 months ago

And you're ignoring literally everything else I said, which is exactly my point.

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

And you’re ignoring literally everything else I said

I mean, when talking about geopolitics, the "geo" part is fundamentally important...

It would have been nice if you apologized, but fine we'll move on to the next sentence:

Meanwhile in Sudan, Ukraine, China, Myanmar, etc. there are millions more people being killed/impacted by genocidal governments and these don’t even make the list of anyone giving a shit when it comes to presidential choice.

In which of those is the US providing munitions to the attackers against international and domestic laws for them to carry out a genocide?

Quick edit:

Were you going to answer this:

And why are you calling a genocide a war? Because the victims have been resisting?

There's just so much wrong with your first comment, it's hard to address it all.

But I'm willing to help explain it so you can understand. This is pretty important stuff. We cleared up that Israel isn't in Europe pretty quickly. So I'm optimistic on the rest.

[-] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 months ago

The US could stop what's happening in multiple of those countries. Does non-action not count towards death tolls? If you have the ability to pull a level that lets 20 people live, is it not your fault if you choose not to pull that lever and they die?

Also, what level of support matters? What if instead of sending munitions they only sent money, would that be a problem? What if instead of money they only sent food, which frees up their own money to buy munitions? The fun thing about the global economy is that almost anything is fungible at scale. Hell, if you look behind the curtains there are US goods and services being used in Russia to attack Ukraine right now, it's just flowing through third parties first to obscure the transactions. The government may not be sending it directly, but America is benefiting from it.

The US though has provided both direct and non-direct support causing genocides in multiple places even in the last 20 years. George W Bush got re-elected while the Iraq war was happening, and that killed a couple hundred thousand civilians, which is what... 6 times the current Gazan death toll? Not to mention Afghanistan which was it's own problem on top of that.

Yes, Palestine vs Israel is a war. It's not automatically a genocide just because one side is absolutely wiping the floor with the other. It's been a war since literally the day after Israel was founded, FIVE arab countries invaded Israel the moment the British Protectorate ended because they didn't like the UN agreed upon borders. People seem to ignore this fact for some reason because it's inconvenient to their "truth".

You're smart, so I'm hoping you're smart enough to follow the money. The US and the west are funding Israel. Why? I'll give you a hint, it has nothing to do with Palestinians, and everything to do with who is funding the Palestinians.

The truth behind of all of this is that both the Israelis and the Palestinians are mostly just being used by others in a proxy war, Hamas is fully funded and armed from outside of Gaza by foreign groups, they have effectively no local income or production related to the fighting other than supplying the people to die.

So why would the US and allies care? Because if Iran and group take out Israel (as is their stated goal) the US ability to control Iran will be diminished and Iran can then become a bigger threat to the western world.

And that's how Geopolitics work.

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world -2 points 4 months ago

Also, what level of support matters?

Well, with the genocide in Gaza, Israel literally would have ran out of munitions and would have had to stop months ago...

If Biden hadnt kept giving them.

But Israel is in no way a "proxy" they should be, but Biden lets them drive the car all the way to Genocide town.

Bibi wants to genocide Palestine, and take their land.

He ain't exactly subtle about it, members of his government keep saying it out loud even.

You're obviously very opinionated about this, you're just wrong...

About almost everything you said so far I'm honestly curious. Where are you getting your information to form these opinions?

Because if Iran and group take out Israel (as is their stated goal) the US ability to control Iran will be diminished and Iran can then become a bigger threat to the western world.

Even that.

If Iran attacks Israel, it's going to be because Israel keeps attacking Hezbollah, and Iran is one of the country's they have a defensive treaty with

Israel is the one starting shit in the Middle East

[-] jumjummy@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago

No, not Biden, the USA. Where’s your critical commentary against the GOP who overwhelmingly supports Israel’s actions? Your one note anti-Biden posts are tiring.

Go plant some sunflowers.

[-] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 months ago

"I'm just wrong"

Israel does want the land. So does Palestine and the supporting countries, they're also on record stating they want to eliminate Israel.

That's kind of what defines a war most of the time.

"If Iran attacks Israel" You say that like it's a hypothetical, have you already forgotten the 100+ drones and missiles they lobbed at Israel on April 13th?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Iranian_strikes_against_Israel

As I said before, and as you completely ignored. The British protectorate ended on May 14th, 1947 and on May 15th a coalition of Arab states invaded Israel. They did so because they did not like the borders set by the UN and wanted more territory. Tell me again how it's Israel that started this shit?

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago

Israel does want the land. So does Palestine

What?!

Palestine wants the land inside Palestine's borders?!

You're right, that totally warrants a genocide y

/s

[-] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 months ago

A) They don't just want it inside Palestinian borders, they have actually stated they want to eliminate Israel.

B) There are no Palestinian borders, it's not a country, it's never been a country. There have never been agreed upon borders by all interested parties.

C) For Gaza specifically, it was occupied by Egypt for almost a couple decades in the middle of all this mess. So who's borders are they again?

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world -2 points 4 months ago

Far as most of lemmy's centrists are concerned, genocide is its own reward.

this post was submitted on 04 Jul 2024
88 points (73.7% liked)

politics

19104 readers
2491 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS